Re: [CMake] BOOL type

2007-12-18 Thread Bill Hoffman
Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Monday 17 December 2007, Brandon Van Every wrote: I propose the addition of a BOOL type to the CMake language. bool(variable [value]) would declare a variable of type BOOL, with an optional value supplied. Any SET commands performed on the variable in its scope

Re: [CMake] BOOL type

2007-12-18 Thread Mike Jackson
On Dec 18, 2007, at 9:16 AM, Bill Hoffman wrote: Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Monday 17 December 2007, Brandon Van Every wrote: I propose the addition of a BOOL type to the CMake language. bool(variable [value]) would declare a variable of type BOOL, with an optional value supplied.

Re: [CMake] BOOL type

2007-12-18 Thread James Bigler
Alexander Neundorf wrote: On Monday 17 December 2007, Brandon Van Every wrote: I propose the addition of a BOOL type to the CMake language. bool(variable [value]) would declare a variable of type BOOL, with an optional value supplied. Any SET commands performed on the variable in its scope

Re: [CMake] BOOL type

2007-12-18 Thread Bill Hoffman
Mike Jackson wrote: I might kindly disagree. There are many instances where backward compatibility was broken in order to clean things up and move on. Vtk 4.x to 5.x was one of those. My code broke with the 5.x release BUT it was for the better. And more importantly I was given plenty of

Re: [CMake] BOOL type

2007-12-18 Thread Bill Hoffman
James Bigler wrote: I also agree that trying to maintain backwards compatibility to the detriment of the future can become a hinderance. I just had a collegue who was extreemly frustrated for several hours with why his build didn't work, only to discover that he should have been using

Re: [CMake] BOOL type

2007-12-18 Thread Pau Garcia i Quiles
Quoting Bill Hoffman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Mike Jackson wrote: I might kindly disagree. There are many instances where backward compatibility was broken in order to clean things up and move on. Vtk 4.x to 5.x was one of those. My code broke with the 5.x release BUT it was for the better.

Re: [CMake] BOOL type

2007-12-18 Thread James Bigler
On Dec 18, 2007, at 7:48 AM, Bill Hoffman wrote: James Bigler wrote: I also agree that trying to maintain backwards compatibility to the detriment of the future can become a hinderance. I just had a collegue who was extreemly frustrated for several hours with why his build didn't work,

Re: [CMake] BOOL type

2007-12-18 Thread Miguel A. Figueroa-Villanueva
On Dec 18, 2007 11:14 AM, Mike Jackson wrote: On Dec 18, 2007, at 10:07 AM, James Bigler wrote: On Dec 18, 2007, at 7:48 AM, Bill Hoffman wrote: James Bigler wrote: I also agree that trying to maintain backwards compatibility to the detriment of the future can become a hinderance. I

Re: [CMake] BOOL type

2007-12-18 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Tuesday 18 December 2007, Bill Hoffman wrote: Attached is a patch which removes Y and N from the recognized values for true/false. This patch may break stuff. I don't know if there are many people who rely on N and Y. I am sure it will break something I don't think we can change

Re: [CMake] BOOL type

2007-12-18 Thread Brandon Van Every
On Dec 18, 2007 10:02 AM, Pau Garcia i Quiles [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What about doing the opposite of what Alex' patch did? What about making Y, YES, 1, ON synonyms? It's more or less what Brandon proposed but without introducing a BOOL(variable bool_value) command. That's the exact

[CMake] BOOL type

2007-12-17 Thread Brandon Van Every
I propose the addition of a BOOL type to the CMake language. bool(variable [value]) would declare a variable of type BOOL, with an optional value supplied. Any SET commands performed on the variable in its scope would be subject to boolean type constraint. A BOOL can take on the following

Re: [CMake] BOOL type

2007-12-17 Thread Alan W. Irwin
To supplement Brandon's Boolean wishlist, I would like to see some way to specify a non-default precedence of Boolean operators. Most languages use parentheses for this, and ideally that would be true for CMake as well. Then a test of Boolean inequality of A and B would be IF((A AND NOT B) OR

Re: [CMake] BOOL type

2007-12-17 Thread Brandon Van Every
On Dec 17, 2007 2:19 PM, Alan W. Irwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To supplement Brandon's Boolean wishlist, I would like to see some way to specify a non-default precedence of Boolean operators. Most languages use parentheses for this, and ideally that would be true for CMake as well. Perhaps

Re: [CMake] BOOL type

2007-12-17 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Monday 17 December 2007, Brandon Van Every wrote: On Dec 17, 2007 2:19 PM, Alan W. Irwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To supplement Brandon's Boolean wishlist, I would like to see some way to specify a non-default precedence of Boolean operators. Most languages use parentheses for this, and

Re: [CMake] BOOL type

2007-12-17 Thread Alexander Neundorf
On Monday 17 December 2007, Brandon Van Every wrote: I propose the addition of a BOOL type to the CMake language. bool(variable [value]) would declare a variable of type BOOL, with an optional value supplied. Any SET commands performed on the variable in its scope would be subject to